1. CH, RA HN DA,' KHAN C. J.-Parties to this petition for leave to appeal are husband and wife., The wife instituted a suit in the Court of Sun-Judge, Bash, District Pooech, for diellOhnlon of her =Tile: With Muhammad &tapir petitioner what. The husband instituted a sun in the Court of the Sub-Judge.
2. Rawalakot for reeti on of conjugal rights.
3. It is admitted that the rosining* took place within the juriadictian of Sub Judge, gb, where the wife was residing with her parents before her marriage and here she is staying et present. The defendantehusband reside, within the juriedletien of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot. The wife moved a petition before the District Judge, Rewslakote for transfer of the case filed by the husband from the Court of Sitheledge, Rawalatok Co the Court of Sub-Judge, Bath, hut the Dietrict ;nal , Ihro alseor ineteed of eccepti g or tajc ng her applitteti a )1 MON transferred the *let salt from the Court of Sub Judger Sigh to the file of Subtitadge, Rewalaket. The learned Single Judge of the High Comet on being moved by a petition reversed the order of the District Judge and transferred the husbands suit for restitution of conjugal rights and Nutted from the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot to that of Sub.Judge, Bagh.
4. It Imes That the District judge. Rawamose, passed the transfer order under an errongh113 impreesion that there WE4 a transfer application by the husband and tog the Sub-Judge at Beat hell no jurisdiction t' try the suit for dissolution of arriege because the defendant-husband was not residing within the jurisdiction of that Court but he failed to take notice of the fact that the Manias:, contract was performed within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge, Sash and thet one of the co:Linde on which dissolution of marriage br sought relates to the Lat ;ni. r ins hipi.Bsad to maintain his wife while she after dfxerkn wi limits of Sub-lodge, Sash., The High Court came to the conclusion that in view of the tart and eircumstanect of the case tt was desirable that both these casts may be beard at Bagb.
5. Tee leave to appeal is ;sr ht oa the glo,knol that the order of transfer by High Court was eircoaeotis Isar on Queltion of jurisdiction.
6. Awed ,general rale is that the plaintiff AS carbtger iar domfmos f his always & right to choose hi; ?Mum, Nevettimiess in Cant Wb,cre a plaintiff has the tioice of two or more Courts in which he may peopetly keratin. a suit and the plelnd Institutes as suit in one of surh Courts, the defendant has the power to apply under section 22, Co P. C. To have the suit transferred from the Court where it has been instituted to ao her Court. Section 23 specifies the Court to which appficatica It to be ma Of course jurisdic- tion conferred by Yetlone 22 and 23 are to be exercised cautiously and only when a clear and manifeet eause is Chown.
7. The provisions of section 22, C. P. C. Invest only the defendant wi power to apply for transfer. Since no application for transfer of the se of the wife was made by the Eland, the appellate Court was not competent to transfer the suit instituted by wife. In both these suits obviously a common question of fact and law would arise and the decision would be interde As such it is always Hirable that such eases should tried together by the same Jud so as to avoid multiplicity in trial o the same ileac as well as of the decision about the seine subject matter.
8. Besides in the suit Med by the husband an the defendants admittedly reside within terra a lull limits of the jagindiution of Sub-Judge, Bagh, therefore, that Clod Alone had the jurisdiction to try this suit.
9. Of course suit for C rettitution of conjng= t tights L, y t brought either at a place where husband, redder or the viO midea ip 4 4Wt 140 the one whale other {{BLUR PAGE}} relatives of the wife are also impleaded and injunction is prayed against them the suit could not be maintained at Rawalakot so far other relatives are concerned when, they reside beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge, Rawalakot.
10. ' In these circumstances the learned Single Judge of the High Court was quite competent to transfer the suit filed by the husband at Ra ralakot to the Court of Sub Judge, Bagh where all the defendants are roti ling and where the cross suit of the wife for dissolution of her marriage was instituted. There being no want of jusladiction the petition for leave to appeal is rejected. Costs shall follow the event.